SST:Evo ... Can Arachnids be Shattered?
- Thread starter Ragnarok
- Start date
MaxSteiner
Mongoose
Its not a matter of infinite casualties, its about the scale of casualties.
If the Federation lose 23 MI thats a significant loss of man power in the region, as they operate in incredibly small numbers and have to be shipped over from federation space.
Conversly lets say you have a warrior bug heavy army of say 200 Warriors and you loose them all. Is that going to affect a hive? Not in the slightest, its an insignificant figure.
The federation has access to orbital bombardment, tailored viruses, and god knows what else all the super high tech wonders of a technologically advanced human empire.
The bugs have near infininite numbers, thats it.
Thats what SST is about, if you think that means humanity can't win and isnt true to the book, film, cgi series, computer games, board game and V1 TTG then I really do wonder...
In the book/film do they win by beating all the bugs? No they don't they win by taking out the command assets in the face of the endless tide of space communists!
Shatter is a silly rule for SST, its only purpose seems to be a quick and easy introduction to the game until the main rulebook is released. And thats fine, for new players it probably does serve a purpose because its a gradual slope into complexity, for BF:E it makes sense, hell for the MI it almost makes sense, but for the bugs it doesnt.
But it doesnt really matter because anyone who feels that way is just going to ignore it anyway until the proper rules come out.
If the Federation lose 23 MI thats a significant loss of man power in the region, as they operate in incredibly small numbers and have to be shipped over from federation space.
Conversly lets say you have a warrior bug heavy army of say 200 Warriors and you loose them all. Is that going to affect a hive? Not in the slightest, its an insignificant figure.
The federation has access to orbital bombardment, tailored viruses, and god knows what else all the super high tech wonders of a technologically advanced human empire.
The bugs have near infininite numbers, thats it.
Thats what SST is about, if you think that means humanity can't win and isnt true to the book, film, cgi series, computer games, board game and V1 TTG then I really do wonder...
In the book/film do they win by beating all the bugs? No they don't they win by taking out the command assets in the face of the endless tide of space communists!
Shatter is a silly rule for SST, its only purpose seems to be a quick and easy introduction to the game until the main rulebook is released. And thats fine, for new players it probably does serve a purpose because its a gradual slope into complexity, for BF:E it makes sense, hell for the MI it almost makes sense, but for the bugs it doesnt.
But it doesnt really matter because anyone who feels that way is just going to ignore it anyway until the proper rules come out.
Shatter is NOT silly.
Try designing a game based on fairness. Not opinion.
It stops people creating stupid armies. Try thinking of reasons these rules are put into play.
Think of the games in tourneys where people take 3 maruaders and a load of Nukes.
Think of the games where people take a whole army of tankers with tunnelling markers.
etc etc etc...
Means big armies become that little more necessary, which judging the movie, is the correct way. Small armies can be effective, but they are flimsy. Just how it should be. A player with just a handful of models shoul dhave to worry just that bit more.
A LAMI player has full realm to what add-ons they want.
Try designing a game based on fairness. Not opinion.
It stops people creating stupid armies. Try thinking of reasons these rules are put into play.
Think of the games in tourneys where people take 3 maruaders and a load of Nukes.
Think of the games where people take a whole army of tankers with tunnelling markers.
etc etc etc...
Means big armies become that little more necessary, which judging the movie, is the correct way. Small armies can be effective, but they are flimsy. Just how it should be. A player with just a handful of models shoul dhave to worry just that bit more.
A LAMI player has full realm to what add-ons they want.
There is still no problem with fielding a tanker army.
Just take 3 Tankers, 2 Thornys and 75 Worker Bugs. Let the tankers advance in a widespread formation and hide the Workers behind them.
Your enemy won't be able to kill all those Tankers before they reach his troops - and if he does the Workers will tear him apart.
If used clever that's a really nasty army, though I would still prefer a mass army and drop the Tankers completely. Mass armies are just better, especially if you field Warriors with Carrions (very resistant to Javelin and Sixgun fire) or Firefries (melting away anything they can reach).
Shattering makes them even more efficient.
Just take 3 Tankers, 2 Thornys and 75 Worker Bugs. Let the tankers advance in a widespread formation and hide the Workers behind them.
Your enemy won't be able to kill all those Tankers before they reach his troops - and if he does the Workers will tear him apart.
If used clever that's a really nasty army, though I would still prefer a mass army and drop the Tankers completely. Mass armies are just better, especially if you field Warriors with Carrions (very resistant to Javelin and Sixgun fire) or Firefries (melting away anything they can reach).
Shattering makes them even more efficient.
Makoto
Mongoose
Stupid? Just because they're an all-tunnellers, or all-airdrops, or just ambush-heavy? What's "stupid" in using legal rules to make allowed and sensible lists?Rob_alderman said:
That's their gamble and problem - should there be no good target for the nukes (plasma bugs, bunched up exos/venerables, etc) those marauders are royally screwed. Even more so with tankers, that can get screwed during tunelling (now), or simply don't take part in the game at all (in EVO). Why penalise those lists even further?Rob_alderman said:
Umm... Don't know why, but this particular sentence begins to remind me of certain large TT company's reasoning...Rob_alderman said:
And they're flimsy and fragile enough just like they're now, again, no need to penalise those lists even further.Rob_alderman said:
The basic scenario is a chance clash of two patrolling units. There is no objective, you are just feeling out where the enemy is and in what strength. Shatter seems like a perfectly reasonable victory condition, in such a case.
I see no reason they could not restore the old Priority Levels/different objectives in the advanced rulebook. Even for tournament play.
I see no reason they could not restore the old Priority Levels/different objectives in the advanced rulebook. Even for tournament play.
MaxSteiner
Mongoose
Honestly I've already toned down what I think of shatter to allow it silly status 
I personally had no problem with any of the different dirty armies in SST.
Most of them are only good the first time you use them, and part of the fun of the game was having your ass handed to by some unfair gimick you hadn't even considered up till then.
As I've said before I can see why they brought in alot of the changes, if you're trying to squeeze the game into two sides of A4 some things have gotta change, I don't even mind overly, they might be basic, but thats ok, because they are the basic rules.
I do kinda wonder why people are making out that V1 was a hulking unplayable car crash of a game just because a new editions out though, I really don't remember any of these problems 6 months ago...
I personally had no problem with any of the different dirty armies in SST.
Most of them are only good the first time you use them, and part of the fun of the game was having your ass handed to by some unfair gimick you hadn't even considered up till then.
As I've said before I can see why they brought in alot of the changes, if you're trying to squeeze the game into two sides of A4 some things have gotta change, I don't even mind overly, they might be basic, but thats ok, because they are the basic rules.
I do kinda wonder why people are making out that V1 was a hulking unplayable car crash of a game just because a new editions out though, I really don't remember any of these problems 6 months ago...
MaxSteiner
Mongoose
Yeah, its a bit weird kinda a 360 turnaround
I kinda agree about the new edition, had they supported the game up until the August release and the Forth, ships, skinny brutes etc had actually appeared when originally intended, it would kinda seem time for a new edition or at the very least a new boxset, but the 6 month hiatus does make early somehow.
I kinda agree about the new edition, had they supported the game up until the August release and the Forth, ships, skinny brutes etc had actually appeared when originally intended, it would kinda seem time for a new edition or at the very least a new boxset, but the 6 month hiatus does make early somehow.
MaxSteiner
Mongoose
Well to be completly honest I (god forbid) agree Tenva in some ways about the game approaching death even before the relaunch announcement.
Stupid releases like the flamberge missile, those electric pylons, most of the skinnies, Heroes of the Federation etc, etc were definatly detrimental to the games success...
Stupid releases like the flamberge missile, those electric pylons, most of the skinnies, Heroes of the Federation etc, etc were definatly detrimental to the games success...
Col_stone
Mongoose
About the versions, i know i'm gonna keep playing V1 for a long time, there aren't any tournaments and stuff around here and the ppl i game agains are very comfortable with V1 so we don't see any need to change yet
I just hope there will be S&P articles for using the new stuff with the "old" rules
I just hope there will be S&P articles for using the new stuff with the "old" rules
Voracioustigger
Mongoose
The whole debate is just silly because EVERY basic game has something like this built in that seems unfair to one force or another.
Take 40k for instance. A basic game is line up and kill everyone (at least that's how I was taught by the GW staff when I began playing). You have 6 turns and whoever kills the most wins. Sooooo, all your mobility is pointless... if you have CC, then you better get there fast. That's sooooo unfair huh?
That's why they made more diversified and more balanced missions for the regular game.
So what do you think will happen in the SST advanced rulebook.... anyone? anyone? Buehler?
Take 40k for instance. A basic game is line up and kill everyone (at least that's how I was taught by the GW staff when I began playing). You have 6 turns and whoever kills the most wins. Sooooo, all your mobility is pointless... if you have CC, then you better get there fast. That's sooooo unfair huh?
That's why they made more diversified and more balanced missions for the regular game.
So what do you think will happen in the SST advanced rulebook.... anyone? anyone? Buehler?
Similar threads
